Free Speech and Moderation: from Filmmaker Rob Stewart dies off Alligator Reef

[scubadada]

This thread is about SB and its Free speech and moderation. The mods and staff here, have been self congratulating themselves on how good they are at moderation and free speech, for several pages now. My own experience here at times, runs contrary to that.

I have been censored here. My free speech has been deleted and restricted, even when not in breach of the ToS, numerous times.


Some examples: At one time, I was giving a list of prohibited words I was not allowed to say or imply... only to watch others use them freely. I have been advised of extra rules and limits that apply directly to me only... I have been given temporary bans for reasons that don't add up, just to silence my point of view. Other times I have been responding to existing posts, both on and off topic, only to be falsely blamed for an off topic posting, and then temporary banned.

And all I every talk about is decompression theory, models and diving practices - math, physics, engineering and science - not people. I get blocked here, because some people can't handle / want to bury, a different point of view....


Sorry guys, but it does seem the back room chatter you engage in, clearly does steer the direction and outcome of thread conversations. From my perspective, you do not successfully act in an impartial manner all the time, and the fair decision process that is it place, seems to get overridden by the people doing the front end moderation.

Perhaps the most conflicting aspect, is when a mod gets to both participate in the thread and reads the back room chatter at the same time. When a mod is impassioned to force a point of view across to the exclusion of all else, the double access empowers the mod to push every button to the limit, until he finally succeeds in getting a one sided conversation through warnings and threats issued to non-agreeable participants.

Another fault in the mod participating in thread situation, is that they still have mod access to user post edits and deletes in the thread, giving them far too much insight as a participant.


*******

The quote above says "we allow that (free speech)". Clearly that's not always the case.
The quote also talks of "... it was because they wanted to muzzle opinions that they didn't agree with..." which is what SB has done to me..... not the other way around.

Thanks for listening.
.

Ross, you are wrong. I use MultiDeco and like it very much. Your support of VPM defies logic and all of the existing scientific database. You've never been able to give up your attachment to this outmoded decompression algorithm.

 

[Miyaru]

For the benefit of those not familiar with the rossh trainwrecks
.....

No need to explain. The same discussion ran on other boards as well, where people got equally tired.

This thread has become amusing. A real-time illustration of John Chatterton's blog Forum Dogs....

 

[Dan]

Skipping dinner & microwaving some more popcorn bags.

 

[boulderjohn]

I was there in the background but I cannot recall "lists of acceptable words" or anything of that nature.

That would be me.

When the deep stops debate was raging, Ross was violating the ToS with regularity. Ross was considered an important participant in an important thread, so I had the job of staying out of the thread and trying to keep Ross in line through counseling. I did that through private messages and emails. As an example, I told him to stop using the words "fake" and "Phony" to describe the data being used against him. The reason was, as I explained, that those words implied an intent to deceive, and they therefore constituted a personal attack. HOWEVER, I told him he was free to use those terms IF he provided evidence that the data was not only false, but it was intentionally false. He provided neither. He seemed to believe that simply saying that something was "fake" constituted proof that it was fake.

And when I call him out on doing those things, and when I show he is misreporting matters in physics, math and science, quoting out of context, and falsely attacking existing models

This is another example of our discussions on this. I tried very, very hard to explain that there is a difference between SAYING that he is misreporting matters in physics, math, and science and SHOWING that he is misreporting them. You continually SAID he had done this, but you never provided any evidence. I pleaded with you to do this, but you refused, saying you had done it in the past and didn't need to do it again. If you had provided specific evidence of these problems, you would have had no problem whatsoever.

 

[Schwob]

...A real-time illustration of John Chatterton's blog Forum Dogs....

... made me look it up...

 

[kelemvor]

It's interesting that you mention "the man". Here on SB, "the man" is simply a bunch of guys (in the gender-neutral meaning of "guy") who for some weird reason has been considered level-headed enough to enforce the ToS in a decent manner. As @The Chairman says, moderation here on SB is reactive rather than proactive. The mods don't (and don't have time to) scan threads to look for stuff to moderate. Every report is considered, but far from all are acted upon. In quite a few cases, the report is dismissed with no action taken, but the mods still are grateful for those reports. Because reports mean that the forum members care and prefer a forum that enforces the rules laid down in the ToS.

The norm is that every report should receive a reply no matter the outcome, but since the mods are a bunch of fallible humans, it may happen that a report is dismissed without feedback to the reporter. When that happens, it's of course regrettable, but stuff happens. Despite the mod corps' attempts to avoid that.

I didn't mean to criticize you, or the policy. I was sincere, it seems quite counter intuitive to me and I would bet others. If you really want more reporting and less responding in threads then you should put that policy out there more often. I've used forums for decades, and moderated on several. Every forum has seemingly preferred folks to work things out on their own before reporting another user. I know for certain that was the case on the forums I moderated. I assumed it to be the case everywhere. I don't hate the idea, I just think if you want more people to know about it you're going to have to advertise the policy as it is a bit unusual.

 

[scubadada]

... made me look it up...

Read it, Forum Dogs

 

[rossh]

This is another example of our discussions on this. I tried very, very hard to explain that there is a difference between SAYING that he is misreporting matters in physics, math, and science and SHOWING that he is misreporting them. You continually SAID he had done this, but you never provided any evidence. I pleaded with you to do this, but you refused, saying you had done it in the past and didn't need to do it again. If you had provided specific evidence of these problems, you would have had no problem whatsoever.

John,
You worked very hard in a long PM, at trying to convince me into your point of view. You seemingly dismissed all the evidence and discussion points I sent your way. When I pushed you into replying with some decision / summary points on the discussion, you ignored that and tried to side step the whole issue. At that point I realized what you were really up too.

You followed the usual instructor training ROTE method... with no apparent appreciation to the truth of the technical details being discussed.


**************

The sad reality is, the vast majority of readers have no appreciation or complex understanding of the finer technical points or the specifics of the science / physics aspects of decompression, or for the things that Mitchell, Doolette, Pollock and I argue about. For most people, its about picking sides based on the person and personalities and credentials. I don't give a hoot for popularity contests, but one of my opponents craves for it.


********


Back to the thread topic.... free speech and censorship at SB. I think we have gone far enough down this path to show that in my case, SB and some of its mods have been manipulating the conversation, and restricting my access to participate and post unencumbered by imposing extra rules and limitations.


Done.

 

[StefinSB]

For the benefit of those not familiar with the rossh trainwrecks:

On numerous (EDIT: virtually countless) occasions, one person has accused another thread participant of ulterior motives, dishonesty, fakery and lies. The person who was accused is a highly respected, publicly employed scientist. In science, lies and fakery is the deadliest sin there is (quite unlike politics or advertising, but I'm digressing). Thus, accusing a scientist of lying, fakery, undisclosed conflict of interest or ulterior motives is the ultimate personal attack. It's an attack on the scientist's integrity, their most valuable asset in their professional life.

It seems as if one of the participants in this thread still - after repeated moderation and counselling - is totally unable to comprehend this rather simple fact.

That is all true Storker. However, it is no un

And... have any of you dis-proven my contentions, my demonstrated science, math, and other supporting data, that shows his attacks on VPM, models, deco, VGE and all the rest of it..... have any of you shown why my reasoning and criticism of Mitchell presentations and concepts on those topics was invalid???? Answer No.



Instead we have mods like Storker here, all from the academic fields, who absolutely follow the academia hierarchy to the exclusion of all else. To the Storker types, Mitchell must automatically be correct because he is credentialed. Under that view point, anyone who dares rock the academia boat, must be doing it for personal reasons, and all outsiders must be deemed wrong.


But what if is not correct??? The storker's of the world would never know it, or admit to it - because they are not interested in the content of the discussion.

If the man uses home made fabricated measures, and non science tools and comparisons with little or no science validity, then that would be...... what?


I'm being punished for telling it like it really is, and the storkers of the world are too busy worshiping the system to notice. I get censored, deleted, and ridiculed for posting about science and data and math, etc, and falsely accused it some stupid childish name calling game.

.
later

I am not a Storker fan but what nonsense are you writing here. Academic hierarchy on SB? Academic credentials don't make one right by default. What You seem to be overlooking is that you seem to be on the loosing side of a discussion about facts. Maybe if you would open up you could see that but it appears that train left the station a long time ago. You may be a decent programmer but that's where your development stopped it seems.

 

[Doc Ben]

Holy Cow. I have no opinion about the debate Ross has had with anyone on SB. And I hope those of you who may have been offended by my entry into your sacred SB world...my sincere apologies. The following clips are interesting...
And if you MODS violate the TOS and it is Reported, how do the other members know of your violations and the sanctions (if any) that MAY be imposed? Or is it all just back channel "discipline"??

When the deep stops debate was raging, Ross was violating the ToS with regularity. Ross was considered an important participant in an important thread, so I had the job of staying out of the thread and trying to keep Ross in line through counseling. I did that through private messages and emails. As an example, I told him to stop using the words "fake" and "Phony" to describe the data being used against him. The reason was, as I explained, that those words implied an intent to deceive, and they therefore constituted a personal attack. HOWEVER, I told him he was free to use those terms IF he provided evidence that the data was not only false, but it was intentionally false. He provided neither. He seemed to believe that simply saying that something was "fake" constituted proof that it was fake.

Counseling?? Just curious who decides what is FAKE?

This is another example of our discussions on this. I tried very, very hard to explain that there is a difference between SAYING that he is misreporting matters in physics, math, and science and SHOWING that he is misreporting them. You continually SAID he had done this, but you never provided any evidence. I pleaded with you to do this, but you refused, saying you had done it in the past and didn't need to do it again. If you had provided specific evidence of these problems, you would have had no problem whatsoever.

I will not ask you to repeat this. This thread has already been distorted enough.

The sad reality is, the vast majority of readers have no appreciation or complex understanding of the finer technical points or the specifics of the science / physics aspects of decompression, or for the things that Mitchell, Doolette, Pollock and I argue about. For most people, its about picking sides based on the person and personalities and credentials. I don't give a hoot for popularity contests, but one of my opponents craves for it.

I am not a Storker fan but what nonsense are you writing here. Academic hierarchy on SB? Academic credentials don't make one right by default. What You seem to be overlooking is that you seem to be on the loosing side of a discussion about facts. Maybe if you would open up you could see that but it appears that train left the station a long time ago. You may be a decent programmer but that's where your development stopped it seems.

So it may be time to end this thread...and I started it!!

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

quote of moderated post removed by Bowlofpetunias

---